April 02, 2009

Talking about the addictive 'In Treatment' with Gabriel Byrne

The following review/feature of "In Treatment," which begins its second season Sunday on HBO, is followed by the text of a recent interview with the show's star, Gabriel Byrne. If you decide to read the interview, be aware that it discusses events that occurred in Season 1. And Byrne mentions one fact about Paul's life that you learn very early on in Season 2.

When he was shooting the enthralling first season of “In Treatment” (8 p.m. Central Time Sunday, HBO; three and a half stars), Gabriel Byrne despised the chair he occupied when he was playing therapist Paul Weston.

Though this psychologically astute series is still addictive, in Season 2 some things have taken a turn for the worse. Weston, who has moved from Maryland to New York City, is enduring a series of personal traumas.

And Byrne ended up with an even less comfortable perch, which he had to occupy for the five long months it took to shoot “In Treatment’s” second season.

“I didn’t like that chair last year, but I hate this year’s chair even more,” Byrne said in a recent interview in HBO’s New York offices, three days after shooting on Season 2 ended. “I said, ‘I want a chair that a regular therapist sits in,’ because they have to sit for all these hours all day. So they gave me this chair and it seemed comfortable, but it restricted my body movements even more. Before, I was able to use my hands and lean and do all that. I can’t do any of it this year.”

But Byrne had already decided this year to eliminate Weston’s few props (eyeglasses, the occasional cup). And the restrictive nature of the hated chair served his goal, which was to “strip down” the character, who, at the start of the season, finds himself living alone, in a new city—stripped, in a sense, of his identity as a father and a husband.

“Now it really just is about his reactions,” Byrne said. “What I wanted was the camera to go inside, go into him and let the audience into his head. That’s kind of frightening, and very challenging. Because you don’t know” if the audience will follow.

It’s difficult not to follow Weston and his new array of patients this season, especially when the compelling Byrne shares the screen with seasoned actors such as John Mahoney, who plays Walter, an arrogant CEO suffering from insomnia, and Hope Davis, who plays Mia, a brittle Manhattan attorney who blames Weston, who treated her when she was in her 20s, for the problems that plague her two decades later.

"John Mahoney’s character is a tough nut to crack, because his problem is denial," Byrne said of the Chicago actor. Walter "is in absolute denial about everything. And he’s also arrogant. You gradually unwind what his thing is, you see what he was hiding all this time."

The show, which consists of five half-hour episodes per week, has an easier-to-follow structure this season. Instead of showing episodes on five consecutive weeknights, this year HBO is airing two episodes on Sundays and three on Mondays. The first four episodes of the week depict Weston’s sessions with his patients, and in the fifth episode, he sees his own therapist, Gina Toll (the quietly masterful Dianne Wiest).

As was the case last year, there are suspenseful questions threaded through the season. The drama of “In Treatment” doesn’t just revolve around whether the patients will make breakthroughs and uncover difficult emotional truths, though those moments can be moving. This year, Weston is also facing a major complications from a former patient’s father, who is angry about Weston's treatment of his son.

Aside from all that, to a great degree, the show is about whether Weston himself—a temperamental man capable of great stubbornness and even greater compassion—will be able to make sense of his life and stop punishing himself for his perceived sins.

Weston’s patients often fight his insights about their lives—and if there is any criticism to be made about this season, it’s that the new crop of patients can be a combative bunch, sometimes exhaustingly so (especially the parents of a young patient named Oliver, whose predictable dysfunction echos that of my least favorite Weston patients, a toxic couple from Season 1).

But the irony is that Weston, who spends a good portion of his week engaged in verbal and emotional jousting with his patients, in his own therapy sessions sometimes battles Toll, who patiently deflects his occasional displays of defiance and arrogance.

"There’s something between them that is unresolved. Why is he so dismissive of her opinion? He’s always fighting her," Byrne said. "Yet he goes back to her and listens to her."

Weston is a caring -- possibly too caring man -- whose professional demeanor doesn’t quite mask his conflicting impulses. He’s clearly intelligent, yet he sometimes makes poor decisions; he has a temper, yet he can demonstrate great patience, especially with Oliver (Aaron Shaw) and Walter, who thinks therapy is a joke. It’s hard to picture any other actor making the contradictory aspects of this passionate, self-doubting man come alive in such a realistic way. Yet even when Weston is silent, the resourceful Byrne makes the therapist the compelling center of most sessions.

"I tend to think of him as an innately compassionate man, but a damaged man. But just because you’re damaged doesn’t mean you can’t be compassionate," Byrne said. “I think what makes him a good therapist with all his patients, and sets him on the right road, whether he says the right thing or the wrong thing—he truly listens. He may not have the answer, but he’s paid the person the compliment of listening to them.”

Below is an edited and slightly condensed transcript of my March 16 interview with Gabriel Byrne.

Questions are in bold type, answers are in regular type.

Was the reason for the move to New York, was that so you would be able to shoot here and use locations here?

It was because my family's here and I live here. It was really important to me to not be away for that length of time again. It was a personal decision and HBO was very good about facilitating that.

And it also seems to make sense for the character, given that he's been through some life changes.

Well yes, because he's now separated. At the end of the last season, I think they separated, or they talked about separation, and now he's moved on to a new city.

Last season there was a journey for Paul -- he was going along a certain path, he wasn't happy, and then all these things happened to him at the end of the season. As far as the story line or journey for Paul this season, how would you characterize that?

He's dealing with the after-effects of separation, both from his wife and his children, and from the city where he lived and worked. He's definitely confronting himself.

And I was kind of interested in that notion of how men are presented in terms of character -- what the definition of masculinity and what a man is. I was interested in exploring it, because I don't believe that men are meant to be strong, silent types who know exactly what to do in every situation. The role of men has changed hugely in the last 10 years. It's changing by the week.

You ask a man who was employed four months ago, who thought the world was a predictable place, how he feels now about himself. Because we all to a greater or lesser extent, find ourselves defined by the work that we do and the relationships that we're in. Take away the work and the relationships and who is actually there?

So he has to begin again in another city, with a completely new list of clients and he also has to redefine himself as a man, outside his marriage.

Was the move really necessary? Was it part of an effort to make a clean break and do this redefinition? I just ask because he seems kind of lonely, like this is a difficult adjustment for him.

I think anyone who's been through a separation or divorce or has moved to another town will understand that sense of alienation. So yes, he is going through that. One of the things about this series, I suppose, is that it reflects a wider world out there. Although we are connected more in terms of technology, we seem to be more alienated spiritually from each other. We live in an age of huge anxiety and uncertainty and fear. And that is reflected in how we behave and how we view the world. This revolution that we're going through -- I believe it is [a revolution], it's not just an economic revolution but it's political, social and spiritual, and the world will not be the same in five years' time. So some of the themes that come up in the show reflect that broader uncertainty about the world.

It examines the notion of, for example -- there's a story about a woman who has a flourishing career. She's not in a relationship and she wants a child. The role of a woman who's 40 years old in our culture, what does it mean? Is there an alternative to marriage? Is marriage changing as well? The Eisenhower-era notion of two kids and two cars in the garage, the nuclear family, is that changing? The society that we wanted, that we longed for, the small-town community where everybody knows everybody else, and everything is safe and predictable -- that notion has been challenged.

America's living through a truly tumultuous age. And never was there a greater need to be listened to than now. Which is why I think people find some sort of reflection in this show, where they may not exactly have the same problem, but something about the spirit of the problem moves them.

That's just it. With Sophie, that didn't reflect anything in my life, but there was something so moving about her trying to come to the truth about her life. Just watching her learn to trust Paul was moving.

Yes. Learning to trust anybody is an enormous act of courage, really. Sometimes you can't even trust your own family.

Or yourself.

Or yourself, yes.

One thing I noticed right away was that Paul has such a good rapport with Oliver, the young boy whose parents are divorcing. Did you have a lot of input into who Paul would be seeing and the story lines and things like that this season?

I suppose I always have the ultimate choice, in how I react, what qualities I think this man should have. I tend to think of him as an innately compassionate man, but a damaged man. But just because you're damaged doesn't mean you can't be compassionate. We are all conflicted as individuals. We can be both mean and kind.

Winning a young person's trust as a parent is one thing. Winning the trust of a child as a therapist is another challenge. How do you speak to a kid? I tried to not make him be patronizing.

I think what makes him a good therapist with all his patients, and sets him on the right road, whether he says the right thing or the wrong thing -- he truly listens. He listens and then he may not have the answer, but he's paid the person the compliment of listening to them.

I think sometimes as parents, we tend to think that what we have to say is more important than what they have to say, because they don't really know what the truth is. But the truth is, [kids] really do know, many times, what they want. And what they're telling you is what they want you to hear. But sometimes we don't want to hear that.

What's sad about this particular case is that the kid is caught between parents who made a mistake.

What's interesting is that Paul sees right away that the kid has made the only choice that he can -- to shut down and not talk about his feelings, as a way of not creating further conflict between his parents. Paul doesn't have this attitude that this kid should be able to easily talk about his feelings -- he sees that the kid's smart and has actually hit on a strategy that, in a way, works for him.

Yes. See, the thing about it is, each character brings its own complexity. Talking to a 40 year old woman about whether she should have a child requires a different kind of acting than talking to a 12 year old kid who doesn't know what's going on, but does know, at some deep, unconscious level [what's going on]. Talking to a CEO who thinks he knows everything and is in complete denial requires a certain kind of energy and acting.

Could you talk about that more? Do you prepare for each scene with the different patients differently?

They have to be so subtly different, really, that it's almost impossible to describe. What you work off is the core, the essence, of the other person. That's really what your raw material is. You can't say, "I'm going to act this way because this particular actor acts in this way, so I have to act in this way." You have to respond to their energy. You can't be the same with each patient. So the way he treats the young girl who [is one of his patients] is going to be very different to the way he treats the CEO or the way he treats Gina, his own therapist, or his ex-wife.

One of the things that's been consistently interesting, though, has been watching Paul's reactions to these people. But there are so many reaction shots of Paul. Is that hard to do, that many reactions? Was that a challenging part of the job?

That's incredibly challenging. It's incredibly challenging to sit in a chair and have nothing else except your face, mostly your eyes. You may have a pen now and again, you may have glasses. I didn't use props so much this year, because I wanted to strip it down even more. If you take up a cup, a cup can give you all kinds of business to do. When that's not there, you're stripped down essentially to nothing. I wanted to strip it down even more.

What I wanted was the camera to go inside, go into him and let the audience into his head. That's kind of frightening, and very challenging. Because you don't know [if the audience will follow]. What the camera's actually doing is, it's photographing thoughts. So that was immensely challenging to me -- I thought to myself, "If I think this thing, will the camera pick it up?" And it's amazing, that if you think something, the camera will pick it up, if you know what you're doing.

So let's say you have a reaction where a [patient] says, "I'm going to kill myself." I can choose to play this as, I really believe this person and I'm worried about them. Or I can choose to [react with], "I don't really believe this but just in case, I'll be alarmed." Or I can [react with], "I downright don't believe this," or I can be disinterested or over-anxious.

So how do you choose which one? And you can choose sometimes to have no reaction, which allows the audience in. Sometimes you can do nothing and the audience thinks you're doing something.

There's definitely a quality of attentive listening to Paul, he picks up on quite subtle things that the characters say, he finds these connections. But then sometimes in Season 1, he have moments where he would be really angry at the patients.

Yeah, the thing about it is, as a professional, he has to keep his prejudices to himself. That's why the Dianne Wiest episodes are so necessary. You get to know what he really thinks about these people. So the next time you see him in session with that person, you think, "He hates this person, why is he being so nice to them? How can he not react to that, when we know he hates the guy?"

Then you'd see him in his life, and you'd realize what a liar he could be. But then you realize, we all lie.

We all lie, we're all self-deluded. It's what Eugene O'Neill said, we are haunted by the masks that we wear, and the masks that others wear. You can believe that you're something and actually the truth is, you're not that at all, according to the universe.

What I've always tried to do is keep him as human as possible, and as un-actorly as I possibly could. By keeping him prop-less this season, I've pared him right down to just his eyes and his brain and his emotions. That's what my ambition was, to just have nothing in the way of that.

Did you have input on the choice of the chair this season? I thought I read that you weren't fond of last season's chair.

I didn't like that chair last year, but I hate this year's chair even more. In fact, in one of the episodes, I get to vent about the chair. I don't know if I'd be able to be a psychoanalyst in reality, but if anyone ever needed to pick out chairs, I'm the guy to go with. I could walk around and sit in any chair, and after five minutes I could tell you whether it's a good chair or not.

I said, "I want a chair that a regular therapist sits in," because they have to sit for all these hours all day. So they gave me this chair and it seemed comfortable, but it restricted my body movements even more. So before, I was able to use my hands and lean and do all that. I can't do any of it this year. I'm now really reduced by the chair and the lack of props.

I said, "OK, that serves the purpose even more." I'm even more restricted. Now it really just is about his reactions. It's physically a hugely challenging role. There are roles that may seem more difficult that would be much easier than this. Because how do you sustain over however many hours purely reacting with your face? How do you do that? I don't know the answer to that.

At one stage I was thinking maybe [Paul] would take notes. But if you take notes, what you write down becomes important. But what you do not write down becomes important too. People are saying, "Why didn't he write that down?"

So, no notes, no glasses, no nothing. Just, this is it -- you tell me the story and I listen to it.

What becomes clear, though, is when there are those big breakthroughs or those intense moments, that intensity wouldn't have been possible without the restraint that came before.

That's very true. It's one of the things I learned in the theater. If you're doing a Pinter play, and people are just saying, "Hello." [long pause] "How are you?" [long pause] "Good." I mean, those are not Pinter lines. But what you learn is, the banality of the dialogue is given importance by the silences in between. When the explosions come, because everything has been superficially so banal and predictable, when something even slightly dramatic happens, you think it's major.

Right, like when Paul stands up, when he gets out of the chair, it's major.

Yeah. In one scene, it was with Hope Davis, I said, "I'm going to stand up in this scene." And she said [quizzically], "Yeah?" I said, "I have never stood up before. The reason I'm standing up is because it's too much to take sitting down." Getting out of the chair is a big deal.

That episode with you and [guest star] Glynn Turman was so intense last season. And now that they've brought back that character [of Alex's father] -- is that going to be resolved at the end of the season, or well before that?

It doesn't resolve itself until the end. There's unfinished business. I like that idea. There are things he still has to deal with that cause him real pain. One of them is, he sent a guy [a patient named Alex] to die. He feels morally responsible for his death and the father blames him for that. The father cannot believe the son killed himself. The father is saying, "You are the one who gave him permission to go back -- if it wasn't for you, he wouldn't be dead." And the father has recourse to law. Now he has to go to court to defend an ethical and moral situation.

A situation in which he feels some culpability.

Yes, but he feels he absolutely did the right thing. And then he starts to doubt himself. Is a therapist someone who bears the responsibility for, say, letting someone out of jail when they could be kept in jail? What if when they get out, they kill someone? Are you culpable?

In [the case of Alex], it was tied up with the fact that he didn't like the guy because he was having an affair with the girl he wanted to be with.

Do you think he thinks he's good at his job, that he's a good therapist? And do you think he cares too much about his patients?

I think he is a good therapist, objectively speaking. I think he doubts that he is, which is interesting. Because I think most people who are really good at what they do doubt that they're good at it. They have a doubt about it.

In this season, why he becomes a therapist is explored. There are some people who are born with a rescue complex -- "I'll fix your problem." You find out a lot about Paul's life, [about his parents, etc., in Season 2]. So now he has this desire to make everything OK for everyone else. He shares that in common with that CEO. He finally says, "It's time to stop taking care of everyone else, it's time to take care of yourself."

He's just compelled to rescue. It's a form of co-dependency. There are people who are born to be victims, who want to be rescued all the time. Then there are [rescuers], those professions suit those people. Professionally, they can indulge in that thing of, "I'll fix everyone else's problems," meanwhile they're falling apart inside.

I know last season people picked favorites, and in the early going, my favorite is John Mahoney's character, the CEO. I really enjoy the sessions with patients who think that Paul can't get to them.

John Mahoney's character is a tough nut to crack, because his problem is denial. He's in absolute denial about everything. And he's also arrogant. You gradually unwind what his thing is, you see what he was hiding all this time.

John was a joy to work with. He's a theater actor, he was doing "The Seafarer" in Chicago as well. Working with all those actors was like working in the theater.

I think what worked so well about the series last season was that we didn't know if the patients would make progress or breakthroughs in therapy, but the other track focused on the suspense of what would happen with Paul's life.

He goes on an emotional journey of his own [this season] that is quite traumatic. Things are not easy for him.

But I don't think he's the kind of person who wants things to be easy.

I think ... yes, you're right. I think he's a tortured man. But we're the recipients of our past history. He's trying to make sense of himself in his present without understanding his past. [Gina] eventually gets him to confront his past, and he does, to a certain extent, confront his past. He ends up … well, I don't want to give it away. Life goes on, let's say. Life just goes on. I think there will be an emotional payoff.

Those Gina sessions are always so good -- she has this uncanny ability to call him on his [b.s.].

Yes, he's a [b.s.-er]. And he's deceptive and a liar and he can be self-deluded.

And he can be quite arrogant.

And he's arrogant and angry. There's something between them that is unresolved. Why is he so dismissive of her opinion? He's always fighting her.

Yet he goes back to her.

Yet he goes back to her and listens to her.

Would you do another season?

That's what everyone keeps asking. I just finished last Friday. I don't honestly know. We'll see how this goes.

How long does it take to film a season?

Five months.

I can see how that would be grueling.

Yes.

Five months of reactions. Of sitting in that chair.

Yes. [laughs] So when you watch this, remember I hate that chair.

Did you ever say to the producers, "Could there be an episode where Paul destroys the chair and gets a new one?"

I didn't want to go to them. I just wanted to take it and set fire to it.

Comments

But... Mo, do you know if Michelle Forbes will be appearing this season? Her scenes (and the character of Kate) were the true highlights for me last season. She's so brilliant. In my opinion, she should have gotten the Golden Globe nomination over Melissa George. What a pity.

Mo here: Oh, I should have mentioned this -- yes, we will see Michelle Forbes and Glynn Turman again as guest stars.

And I think you offered some very perceptive comments, especially the one about restraint and intensity. Plus, the continuing saga of "the chair" is hilarious. Someone needs to send him a chair he can burn. That should resolve the issue nicely! ;-)

I had heard about Glynn Turman (which is beyond thrilling!), but I really hadn't heard anything about Michelle Forbes. And with her a regular on "True Blood" now, I wasn't sure if they would have been able to facilitate some appearances. Now I can rest assured. ;-) Thank you.

"In Treatment" is unlike anything that has ever aired on television. I was initially drawn to it by the subject matter, and instantly hooked by the extraordinary performances, scripts and directorial choices. In this era of dumbed-down, fast and easy info-tainment, Season 1 dared to reveal itself gradually and in subtle ways. It demanded that close attention be paid, and it had the courage to rattle its viewers' preconceptions about the human condition as much as it did those of its characters. I discovered that repeat viewings rewarded me with new insights into the interwoven storylines, and ultimately I found compassion for even the most difficult of characters. I'm really thrilled Season 2 is finally here and needless to say, as long as Dr. Weston is "in session", this "client" will be too!

The second season of the original Israeli show was even better than the first, in my opinion. I hope that will be the case with the American adaptation. The storyline with the kid was especially good in the original, so watch out for that.

Have you ever seen any of Be'Tipul's episodes?

By the way, some trivia: John Mahoney's character's counterpart in Be'Tipul is played by Moni Moshonov. Moshonov also stars in the Israeli version of The Sketch Show. Mahoney's Frasier co-star Kelsey Grammer produced and starred in the American version.

How could you interview Mr Byrne and not faint? haha. How was the Mojo in the interview? I loved this show from the first episode I think I held my breath during half of it. My Byrne is so fascinating in this role. he can act more with his face than other actors can with their whole bodies. He's a thrill to watch. What a man what a mighty good man.

I love this series, but just don't like John Mahoney at all. I keep wondering what "DAD" from Frasier is doing in this odd part. He appears way too old and totally out of character. Oliver, on the other hand, , is portrayed by an enormously gifted actor. What a joy to watch his sessions!

I 'accidentally' heard Gabriel's interview on NPR a few weeks ago and immediately went home and prioritized my Netflix list with season one at the head. Like another posting, I am using the word 'mesmerizing' to describe the show to my friends. Aside from the quality acting and complex, intelligent script, it helps me look at actual issues in my and others' lives. Reality TV at its best!

I was immediately addicted to "In Treatment", and I look forward to every episode. Keeps me on the edge of my seat and almost breathless at times, and the stories are quite emotional. I especially love the interaction between Paul and Gina. GB and DW are very absorbing and convincing to watch...it's almost like you're in the same room with them.

Affiliate links disclaimer:

Clicking on the green links will direct you to a third-party Web site. Bloggers and staff writers are in no way affiliated with these links that are placed by an e-commerce specialist only after stories and posts have been published.